Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM sample gallery

Sigma's new 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM super-zoom lens is well-suited to wildlife photography. We put it on a Canon EOS 5D IV, found some avian subjects and put the results into a sample gallery. We'll be adding more photos in the near future, so stay tuned!

In good light the FZ1000 equals these results, so have a think, as there is now a version 2 with a bigger zoom, and Sony have one as well. And it is absolutely silent and runs at 10 FPS in raw, as does an a6000 with adaptor and a MUCH cheaper alternative-manual lenses included as the highlighted focussing indication works well.Of course IF you need super low-light results AND FF .......

Im debating this or just getting the newer teleconverter for my Tamron g2 70-200 which would save about $350 but not sure of the AF performance , the Tamron would effectively be f5.6 at 400mm I think with the 2x vs the 6.3 of this lens @ 400

It looks like a very good lens. The images are very detailed with good color and contrast. I think many people would rather sacrifice a 1/2 stop of light and get a much lighter, cheaper lens compared to the lenses like Canon 100-400.

The 100-400 II is a refined lens that deals with the edge sharpness most tele-zooms struggle very well. There will be other differences but that doesn’t take anything away from the fact that this Sigma is bringing a very clever specification to the users and is looking to be pretty excellent package overall - on 135 format at least.

while some of these photos look decent, for average joe there is nothing like personal experience with a lens out there on the filed! majority of the owners will be using 1.4x extender with this lens and make it turn into mush ;-) no comparison to canon equivalent, although canon is a lot more expensive!

#1. Nobody's going to use a TC with this lens. The resulting aperture f/8.8 is too slow for PDAF to work. Moreover, as it was mentioned many times, cropping on high resolution sensor results in better image quality than using TC.#2. I had Canon 100-400 mkII lens, it didn't look any better in resolution department. So wait for the controlled measurements before jumping into conclusions.

Bryan Carnathan's website (www.the-digital-picture.com) has reviews for the all the TCs, where he compares cropping vs TC. A TC provides a slight sharpness increase over cropping based on his comparisons.

Sometimes it's irrelevant whether one is better than the other, if you need more reach using a tc is a good way to get it , and you can still crop for even more reach if needed. If you simply crop you need to crop more without a tc. But it's better to have a zoom with the right range in the first place to not need to crop or use a tc.

@imagemaster, "why do think competent photographers would be using TC's "

Don't you even realize how ridiculous it sounds? You are making an assumption, and then require others to prove/disprove it.Maybe competent photographers don't use TC, or maybe they are not competent in this regard, or maybe it's all a figment of your imagination. Whatever the case, they burden of proof on you, you can't appeal to phantom authority. The physics is clear in this case, so try to make a cogent argument.

I liked most of the wildlife photos. I feel that while this lens will be used mostly by wildlife/bird photographers, 400 mm is not enough reach on FF camera. The 5D IV and D810 have higher resolution and room for cropping, but still...

It will be more useful to APSC shooters (myself included). Whether it provides enough advantage over a 150-600 is to be seen after more reviews and APSC samples.

I think it was a mistake to use the Canon 5D mkIV for this sample gallery. Put very simply, I should imagine a very large proportion of the buyers of this lens will not be using it was a camera like the 5D mkIV, or full-frame. It gives a misleading impression of a lens like this when a gallery is shot with a full-frame cameras. Crop sensor cameras put far more stress on the lens with their higher pixel density.

What's more a large proportion of those using this lens for wildlife, will be using a crop body either because of the effective reach, or because crop sensor bodies are cheaper and this is a lower cost 100-400mm type zoom than those offered by the camera manufacturers.

It would have been far more appropriate to shoot this sample gallery with something like an 80D as it would be more relevant to the prospective purchasers of this lens.

I have to agree here. Sharpness is (for my taste) borderline "sharp enough" on the 5DIV, but I got a 7D(I) and according to what we learned from the 150-600 zooms (in particular the 1st gen Tammy) what is good enough on FF might not be looking that good anymore on APS-C.

Since this lens is designed to cover full frame, it's absolutely appropriate to show a sample gallery shot on a full frame camera. To see how it looks on a cropped camera, just take an image and crop it appropriately. Pixel peeping is fruitless with this sort of gallery in either case.

@Henning WIt’s useful to see both formats, though the native format should have a priority as you say. But I disagree when you say that you can just imagine APS-C crop out of the 135 format picture because all the image characteristics, from sharpness, a number of subtle characteristics to bokeh and subject isolation will be different when you shoot the same frame with APS-C vs 135 format. So cropping 135 sensor to APS-C after the shot gives a different character to your image than when you shoot it on APS-C. Most obvious will be subject isolation and changes in bokeh (for the same frame shot vs cropped after the shot).

The difference between a full-frame and a crop sensor is that (1) the size of the sensor is smaller in the crop obviously, and (2) the size of each pixel is much smaller in the crop as well. The idea of using a similar-density full-frame camera is a very good one, as it will both show the resulting sharpness on the crop sensor AND the change in sharpness / vignetting / distortions / CA on the corners of both the crop and full frame sensors.

Other concerns about bokeh etc are all results of the size of the pixels and the resolution of the sensor, so fall out in the wash if you use a crop-sensor-density FF sensor for testing.

I now have this lens for two days and it is my first long tele lens. I have tested the lens during the evenings with handheld shooting on my D750 and I am really pleased with the autofocus speed and accuracy. I have to get used to shooting with a 400mm but sharpness is really very good at 400mm f6.3 and razor sharp at f8. Just standing still without any support and handheld shooting my shots are sharp for sure with 1/250 and very often with 1/180. But somehow I also got some sharp handheld pictures with 1/90 and even 1/60. Great to have this lens that fits my my regular backpack and allows me to carry easily. As the lens has no tripod mount facility I have put in on my tripod via the regular camera screw in. I did not have the feeling that I was pushing the camera or lens too much, but I read on forums that there might be a risk of breaking stuff. I wonder if someone can give a good advise here.

Thanks for sharing your experience on this lens. The only tele zoom I have with D750 is the Nikon 70-200 f/4. I'm thinking of buying this lens to begin my sport/wildlife shooting, which is something new to me. I'll probably avoid mounting this lens on tripod though!

Fine optics and the price is OK, I guess.Now, how are we going to deal with the lack of lens collar. This is not a small lens and practically there will be a considerable front-heaviness when mounted on a tripod or a monopod. It got F6.3 aperture, so it is kind of slow and the OS may not be enough for landscape photography or precise LiveView focusing for super-telephoto with teleconverters.

Yep. It weighs more or less the same as the Canon 400 5,6 and it has a collar. Granted, I mostly handhold it but sometimes a monopod is nice. I for sure would never mount the camera on a mono- or tripod with the lens attached, neither my Canon lens nor this one; this Sigma is for handholding, sans tcs as you say.

Of course, for photographing birds at a feeder a tripod is sort of nice but maybe Manfrotto's tele support could work..

consider Nikon 70-200/f4 with 1.4 extender. On APS-C, the lens would be roughly 100-300 and with the extender 140-420. The lens and extender are both very compact and optically excellent quality (this photo was shot with this combination: https://www.flickr.com/cameraroll). Price is relatively tame. An alternative is Nikon or Tamron 70-300. Both are good but not stellar lenses (see Photozone for review). Both are relatively modestly priced.

#1. Teleconverters make no sense on high resolution digital cameras. Just crop the image.#2. Using FF lenses on APS-C bodies, especially with TC (or cropping) turns even the best lenses into very mediocre ones.

Contra Mundum, your statement is a rather generalist one and not always practically relevant. Nikon 70-200 f/4 works very well with TC1.4 (last version). While there may be a slight deterioration visible in a lab, in my field comparisons, I saw no real difference and I pay attention to details. If you disagree, please comment IN WHAT WAY SPECIFICALLY is this image taken with full frame (D800) degraded by using at TC converter https://www.flickr.com/cameraroll ? I think that the image is technically good enough for a print of 17"x22", (my default) and not visibly degraded by the use of the extender. A great deal depends on camera technique and postprocessing skills and less on fancy gear.

You need to consider weight, versatility, price and photographer skill when choosing gear. It is easy to suggest Nikon 80-400 or exotic primes, but does the photographer skill call for weight, cost or specialized applications of these lenses?

A 100-400mm lens on an APS-C body is ideal for safari. The 200x1.4 will be too short many times, especially if a bird is your subject, as it should be at times. You definitely do not want to be switching a tele-converter on and off in a dusty, bouncy safari vehicle. Take your Fuji along with a wide to slightly telephoto zoom or a good wide angle lens for close encounters, scenics, sunsets and pictures with people.

On an affordable Nikon DX body I'd just get an affordable 55-300mm VR. A very, very good tele lens. Canon make an even better 55-250mm IS. Both lenses do the job perfectlly well. Just get a long lens and enjoy your Safari.

Not only the lens is amazing, the photographer and camera too! Can't remember the last time I was entertained with sample photos, considering these are without PP. The first photo got the focus bang on, the DOF is so thin that it is less sharp on all areas except the bird's head. Third photo also as awesome, exposed for the highlights and composition is just.. ..

A review from CAMERALABS says that "the OS is not very effective at 400mm with shutter speeds around 1/100 sec and 1/50 sec". I suggest that DPREVIEW should have photos taken with that shutter speed range next time. Thanks.

Geez, whos gonna use a 400mm lens shooting at 1/50? Subjects move, image stabilization is highly overrated. If this lens can shoot at 1/200 without problems then it's all that needed. I tend not to shoot below 1/400 in daylight with any lens unless I have to.

Contra: Actually it's a useful thing to know you have in reserve to use at a pinch. Yes, ideally you'll be shooting in excellent light, but sometimes you have to roll with what you have. Also, not everyone shoots fast moving things.

I have to say the stabilization on the Canon 100-400 mk2 is absolutely superb. Whilst I wouldn't recommend people shoot at those sorts of shutter speeds, in my informal testing the Canon acquits itself very very well in precisely that sort of situation. I've been really impressed by it. Really impressed.

This lens is comparable in size / weight with mft PanaLeica 100-400 but costs $1000 less. Could it be adapted to MFT bodies while preserving autofocus etc... ? We'd be losing auto-correction but distortion is not be too bad to start with, and using the center of the lens would limit vignetting at any aperture and improve perceived sharpness. Is that a crazy idea?

I am comparing it to the PL 100-400 which is a mft lens. Similar size/weight. I know the angle of view would be different but my comparison is with a lens that has the same focal range but different mount.

Of course it would work. Maybe not for BIF, but AF on adapted EF lenses is quite decent in my experience. The lens would still have the same focal length as any other 100-400mm lens. This is cheaper, but you won't get some benefits like DFD and dual IS, AF in video is also somewhat limited and AF-C for stills is basically borked (they can't hunt back and forth fast enough). For an E-M1.2 that might be a bit different, I haven't tested it enough. Same goes with GH4.

In other words - Most of the sample shots shown here would pose no real issue with a M4/3's body and this lens.

Once nice benefit in this scenario is unlike the PanaLeica you can add a teleconverter (I assume?) or a telecompressor, the latter changing the lens to a 71-284mm f3.5-4.5, which may not sound 'that' exciting, but 284mm f4.5 isn't that far from the 300/4. A 140-570mm (ish) ~f4 is pretty useful IMO.

I am unlikely to go with this lens, mainly because I now tend to use M43 system and I leave my Nikon 800 and its lenses home. However, I like the idea of a slower lens that is still superb optically. This lens does not seem to be optically superb (but it seems good), has no tripod collar (even though it may need it more than faster lenses) and it has no tripod collar (again, important with a lens of this length). I have been saying for quite a while, that having slower, smaller lenses that are otherwise on par with their heavier, bulkier and pricier brethren would be very desirable. I do like my svelte Nikon 70-200 f/4 that is in all respect but speed comparable to pricier and heavier 70-200 f/2.8. I wish there were the whole lines of slower, smaller lighter lenses. This Sigma is a somewhat flawed example of what I am looking for.

Nice sample shots and a good selection of subjects. Two things:1. Did you fine tune the autofocus? In-camera or using the dock? Or both? 2. Could you put it on a crop-sensor 80D or 77D or D7200 so we can see how it behaves with the higher pixel density?

Very nice. At least optically, it seems to be on par with the old canon 100-400L. But then again, so is my old Panasonic 100-300 for m43.The AF quality is what will really make or break this lens though.

A lens for wildlife photography, and the fastest action captured is a turtle! :-)

For such lenses, tracking fast moving subjects should be the proof of how useful the actual lens is. I know tracking accuracy has to to with the camera too, but the lens itself plays a major role. Hope such pictures will follow when you add more to the gallery.

Why Nikon can't do the same? some people made it sound like a it's magic a lens from China beats a lens from Japan. My Samyang 14 from Koran also sharper thana few lens from japan. wow, magical !!! LOL

@ alouette - Yes. Olympus also had the 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 for 4/3's, which works on many modern m43's cameras and was a very popular lens for that system. It is a bit smaller and lighter than this, but not in epic proportions. The Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 becomes a kind of 40-210mm f2.8-4 when used with the 1.4x TC.

You'll spend three times as much on Sony's (still coming) solution, while this Sigma will at least give you the optical performance seen above, with full native performance (unlike Sony's aging 70-400G2, with a Sony adapter even).

If past Sigma adapted performance is a reasonable gauge, this new shorter tele-zoom should perform quite well on the high-spec a6300.

I don't know how much this lens weighs but I'm pretty certain adding a 25mm adaptor to it is not going to make any appreciable difference to the weight or size - I doubt if you'd even notice it was there.

No idea about the AF but there's a native Sony lens in this focal length for both A and e-mounts which is faster anyway.

The native E-mount lens *should* be superior in every way. Given the price, it'd better be.

But Sony's adapter solution is halfarsed; even adapted Canon glass has more functionality, meaning that regardless of how good the 70-400G2 is optically, it won't be up to snuff when it comes to getting the shot.

Sigma released four lenses at this year's CP+ in Yokohama. We're at the show, where we made time to sit down with Kazuto Yamaki, CEO of Sigma, to find our more about the new products. Read our interview

Sigma has announced the 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM, a relatively compact and lightweight stabilized super-telephoto lens that promises the performance of brighter 100-400s, but in a smaller package. Read more

The Leica Q2 is a fixed-lens, full-frame camera sporting a new 47.3MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and replaces the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116), launched in 2015.

Fujifilm's GFX 50R takes the image quality from the existing 50S model and wraps it in a new body with new controls and a lower price of entry. Is that enough to tempt you to pick one up for yourself? Find out how the GFX 50R performs in our full review.

The Mavic Air hits the sweet spot for many drone users, combining compact size with high performance and good image quality. Find out what makes it so useful, and why it might just be the best travel-friendly drone on the market today.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Montana judge Dana L. Christensen has ruled the Republican National Committee did not infringe upon the copyright of photographer Erika Peterman after they took a photo from a Democratic candidate's Facebook page without permission and altered it to use in a derogatory promotional mailer.

Leica recently announced the Q2, a digital rangefinder with a fixed 28mm F1.7 lens. It's a heck of a lot of fun to shoot with, but is it right for you? Based on our time with the camera, and its specifications, we've examined how well-suited it is for common photography use-cases.

Now that our Panasonic Lumix S1R has final firmware, we couldn't wait to get out shooting with it - and we also tried the high-res mode, which combines files to get 187 megapixel images. Because sometimes, 47 megapixels just isn't enough.

Drones can be useful tools in urban areas, where they're utilized for everything from news reporting to building inspections, but flying in these areas requires careful preparation. Here's what you need to know to do so safely.